If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The original theme of the thread is about the RAC rules dictating 'Amateur' status, and my comments were directed toward the current status of the 'Amateur' stake and handlers.

I believe the spirit in which the 'Amateur' stake was created years ago has been lost. If you have been in field trials for any length of time, you know what I am talking about. In years past, the Amateur stake has consisted mainly of Amateurs who owned and ran a couple of dogs (even trained them themselves). Rarely were there handlers with more than two dogs, but now it is becoming commonplace.

The 'Amateur' stake seems to be going in a new direction by having a large number handlers with multiple dogs. Apparently I am old fashioned and need to get with the 'new' trend of the 'Amateur' stake since it seems to be fine with you youngsters, and oh yeah, this is AMERICA!!

Signed with my real name below,

Hey Tammy, I believe in principal that you and I basically agree on the issue of "Amateur" status and how that designation may be being misused by a few people.

I see you use your real name. I met a very nice Tammy Bell at a few trials in the Midwest a year or more ago. My recollection was that she was a friend, training partner and sometime travelling companion of Alex Washburn.

.
I've stated this before but I think Field Trials should be a little more like Hockey. If people were allowed to take care of their issues face to face and not take cheap shots from the gallery or on the internet there would be a little more respect given and received on the weekends so that the sport could police itself.

Shawn Stahl

I really like your hockey idea.
I think it would be great if we could do the same thingt here on RTF!!

Hey Tammy, I believe in principal that you and I basically agree on the issue of "Amateur" status and how that designation may be being misused by a few people.

I see you use your real name. I met a very nice Tammy Bell at a few trials in the Midwest a year or more ago. My recollection was that she was a friend, training partner and sometime travelling companion of Alex Washburn.

Are you that same Tammy Bell??

Marc Healey

Thanks so much, Marc. Yes that was I. It was at the Tulsa RC Fall Field trial in Stillwater, OK, in 2009.

I really have no problem at all with Amateurs that own several dogs and want to run them all in the Amateur Stake - if they can afford it and have the ability to do it, let them. How lucky are they to have that many well-trained, competitive dogs? They obviously have earned the privilege of running them.

The changes regarding "Amateur" status that I think the RAC really needs to focus on are:

1) A change needs to be made regarding Pro's going back to "Amateur" status. IMHO they not only should have the waiting period already enforced, but they should not be allowed to handle any dogs in the Amateur stake that they have previously derived income from. In this area of the country we have two former Pros running dogs that are still owned by former clients. They derived income from training these dogs for years in the past and have now merely slapped their name on them as a co-owner and currently run them in the Amateur stakes. They say that they are now training them "for a co-ownership stake in the dog". This arrangement is too fishy for me and I think this addition to the current rule should be added. Why can't they just go get their own pup and start from scratch like the rest of us or buy a started dog that they did not train when they were a Pro.

2) I also think that a change needs to be made regarding people handling other peoples dogs for cash, travel expenses, whatever. I propose that all Amateur stakes should be a modified "owner-handler" stake. I have no problem with someone starting someone's dog for them in the first series because they have to work and I have no problem with someone finishing up the trial because the owner has an emergency. But in the true nature of being an "Amateur", people need to run their own dogs. Maybe the rule could read that an Amateur must handle their dog at the Amateur Stake in at least one series? That would nip a few in the bud. When it is happening at the National Amateur, to me it is a problem. I think the National Amateur stake should most definitely always be "owner/handler" only. I don't care if the money came up-front, in the middle or at the end of the "acquaintance", no one should be running someone else's dog for them exclusively.....especially if the owner never, ever runs the dog themselves. That is one of the things that a Pro can do for you, but the line needs to be drawn in the Amateur stake. In addition, anyone that "co-owns" a dog should have to have their dogs registration listing them as a co-owner in their possession while running the dog at the Field Trial. If there is a question, show the FT Committee that you are legit...and wait until you have the paperwork before running - no problem and sorry for the inconvenience.

Just my take on how to make things more transparent. OK, I will put on my hard hat now and let the comments fly.

There are too many people out there who think that the only thing that's right is to get by and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you donít have integrity, nothing else matters ~ Watts

I think the National Amateur stake should most definitely always be "owner/handler"

What about for medical reasons?

I'll always think that what Harvey Peterson did for Karon Webster at the nat'l am many years ago as a very very good, Good Samaritan gesture.

Howard NiemiYou really gotta be careful about how high a pedestal you put your method, your accomplishments, your dog on. There's usually someone who's done more, somewhere. And they may have used a different method than you did! Chris Atkinson 2013